Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    March 25, 2013 2:30pm-3:00pm PDT

2:30 pm
us. >> barbara hale, assistant general manager. the report that the city's chief economist prepared, did not look at the prospects for local investment. so it looked at the shell contract and at the increase in pricing assumed that if you were paying more on your electric bill, you as a san francisco resident wouldn't have that money to spend in other ways here in san francisco and it would therefore decrease jobs in other sectors. but the report explicitly acknowledged that it did not look at the local investment, local build portion of the clean power sf program. so that's how it's distinguished. >> also in terms of the
2:31 pm
renewable as well >> correct, the contract is on renewable and the local investment component is not located in that chief economist report. >> california certified renewable, yes. >> thank you, we are getting into the territory about why -- we discussed this in the last meeting that there is misinformation put out about the loss of jobs and energy created. that's confused a lot of people in san francisco. although the survey we'll see that was measured perhaps it wasn't a great number of people in san francisco. that information has been out there and it needs to be rebutted by communication staff within offices and puc. commissioner campos? >> i look forward to the information. i think the
2:32 pm
numbers we have here are pretty encouraging in terms of the numbers put out here, i think a lot of misinformation has been put out there and i think their strategy has been sort of let's throw everything up the wall strategy and see what sticks and you mentioned they mail, at times i do wonder who is doing more to kill this program whether it's p g and e and having to put out some of this information to be honest i think it's unfortunate. >> commissioner breed? >> i just want to go back to a point that commissioner torres brought up regarding the reduction of employment. i think clearly if there are a logs loss of customers for p g and e there will not be a need
2:33 pm
for as many employees if a number of people choose to be a part of this program. so for clarity's sake i want to understand if that has been something that has been taking into consideration with regard to moving in this direction. there will be clearly a loss of job opportunities, although i company realize as a result of what the city plans to do with clean power, we are talking about building plant, about hiring locally, there is a lot of great local opportunities that will happen job wise as a result of this program. but clearly san francisco statewide, there will be an impact job wise. i just wanted to understand what that means or if that's something we are even talking about >> i think staff can answer that question, but i believe the measure of job loss was
2:34 pm
pretty minimal from the economic impact report that the controllers office had done, it wasn't measuring the job loss in the p g and e but the overall economy. >> that's correct. i was looking at the overall san francisco economy assuming that dollars spent on increase in electric bill would not increase other products. it did not focus on electrical work, but to that point, remember that the clean power sf program enabled by state statute remains for all p g and e customers for all services. it's only the supply of electricity that san francisco power program would then partner with p g and e to provide. if you are a resident
2:35 pm
of san francisco and member of the clean power sf group, your lights go out and you still go out and call a p g and e they roll out and respond to that outage and then refers the crews out for work. there is a very much heavy reliance, a partnership for implement thg program. >> for clarity, what you are saying to me is that we are not looking necessarily for any job loss for employees of p g and e based on how this is being rolled out? >> that is correct. the city's chief economist did not look at particular job sectors. they just looked at how much money would not be spent on other things since it's being spent on the electricity and conoh
2:36 pm
metric modeling as to what other jobs would be lost because the money is not circuiting in the economy. >> i understand that but we could not say for certain that there wouldn't be job loss because of certain sectors. >> that's correct. we can't say there will be job loss or job gain. we do have investments that we expect that there will be job loss and job gain. >> i would want us is to make sure we are put all the cards on the table because this is a big decision to move forward in this direction but i want to make sure we are reporting the facts and what the impacts are for the sake of incredible job opportunities that could exist and leading the way for
2:37 pm
providing clean energy? san francisco and what that does for the environment and i want to make sure we are looking at every single issue as it relates to job opportunities and for those persons who maybe the industry may change or not exist anymore and we are not just ignoring that sector. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner court -- >> thank you. these jobs are coupled together. supervisors breeds comments and supervisor avalos, i don't think they would suffer some job loss, but i think the key is whether there is a net job loss or net job gain. i'm hoping we'll have a robe us discussion about
2:38 pm
exactly what that build looks like and how we plan to pay for it and how many jobs are gained by the cca and the roll out that we have been discussing for several months. >> thank you. commissioner victor? >> yes. i just want to respond to the comment that torres said about the the job question and this goes back to hearing the survey because there is a question about the roll out and there is an appetite for a local build out that would generate jobs. even how many jobs would be created and how it would be coupled with the renewable plan, it does say it in slide # 16 that what people would feel would that increase their interest. i'm eager to get the completion of the
2:39 pm
survey because that may reframe the conversation a bit. >> thank you. in a moment we'll get back to the survey. commissioner campos? >> i think it's important to provide some context to some of these results. i think one of the main things about the numbers in terms of where we are today compared to where we were in prior years, i mean, i think it's impressive the numbers have gotten better. if we look at the chart of april 2011, total of 37 percent same things april 12, with those who would stay and now at 45 percent. this is after, you know, so much money that has been spent on people opposing this project and providing a lot of information about it. the fact that the numbers have
2:40 pm
remained and in fact have increased are pretty significant. i also think in terms of the jobs, the best response that i have heard in terms of what the job loss could potentially be was actually from the puc's former general manager who pointed out there was a number of assumption that were made in the economist report. there was for one thing the assumption that somehow any money that went into a reserve that that was money that would not have been used by puc in another way. to assume that somehow that met to a loss of investment as mr. harrington noted was really faulty. likewise the differentiation between the fact that people have as customers a vested interest and desire to actually
2:41 pm
buy clean energy is something that was not reflected and at the end of the day the overall analysis that was done did not include anything about the build out. so even without that, the percentage or the numbers of jobs that were estimated to be lost were pretty minimal but if you look at the entire analysis and consider the build out, it's a different story. i'm pretty confident in terms of the impact on the local economy and i certainly look forward to hearing the rest of the presentation. commissioner mar? >> i would like to thank you for the research on the survey and i also wanted to just emphasize to chair torres
2:42 pm
question that by strongly promoting program as it's build out with a strong local build out, i think we can make those arguments and more people supporting it in the future. >> and the conversation about what you and i had about education when only 1 in 5 rate pairs -- payers. we have our homework cut out for us. >> as anticipated. >> so the next question is one of the commissioner referred to a moment go which is the final substantive question. the final build out which was a power of sf and potential impact in san
2:43 pm
francisco and to renewable facilities to be built and help to save jobs. our final question, found that 52 percent told us they would remain with clear power sf and 36 percent opt out. i have different numbers here that amount to different types of information to summarize, you will see on this slide, the changes in responses over the course of the survey given different assumptions parameters. between 41 percent and 35 percent would remain with a third of those polled and about 43 percent. this is contingent upon each rate offered and the availability of an alternative program from p g and e and it's cost and the information about the build out. it gives you some sense of the fluidity and
2:44 pm
public perception to remain with the program depending on how much they know about it. >> in our last meeting we talked about sending out a fact sheet with the number of jobs created. would that be something we can include to encourage people to opt in as well? >> i think we have a version of that and i'm sure it does include parts about job creation . >> yes. that's accurate. we have a fact sheet prepared. we don't have a solid number yet in terms of the impact but we do describe in the fact sheet, the investment, the local investment. thank you. >> mets? >> that concludes the presentation and i would be
2:45 pm
happy to answer any questions you have. >> thank you for your presentation. the numbers of quite encouraging and to emphasize we are not looking at a poll, we are measuring how many people are going to be staying in the program and the numbers are very encouraging. we are not expecting to roll this out to every san franciscans part of way. we can go on to our next portion if there are no if you are comments. >> now we turn to the follow up questions from the san francisco public utilities commission. there are some questions for you on slide 20 and i will go through each of those in turn starting with our first one. how does the 20-30
2:46 pm
mega watts clear power fit into the overall city load and specifically the city's residential load as it targets resident dental residential load. 5.6 mega watts of electricity is consumed. 200 mega watt hours is what our program would meet. we have a total of 5.5. we are looking for 270,000. when you take out of that 5.6 million, the load san francisco already serving our municipal customers, we reduce that by 17 percent.
2:47 pm
that's the first green slide you see there leaving the total available load to serve 4.6 million mega watt hours. that's our overall potential load. looking now at this slide you can see where we have taken out in the blue slide, the residential load that is not care. so this is the total load that are not low income customers, that are residential non-low income. you will recall when the board considered the request to authorize the program to go forward, we were asked to target the program initially away from that vulnerable customer segment that is the low income care customer. so we've taken that load out of the slice and taken
2:48 pm
it here on the blue slice which is just the residential electronic customer base that is not a low income customer. >> commissioner bree? >> we don't have that slide and i can't see it on the screen clearly. >> it's not showing on your screen. >> my screen not clear so i can't see the numbers. >> the final slide in your packet has this information broken out. the next slide emphasizes from that 1.6 million mega watt hours, that portion that is the non-care load versus the care load. and that brings us then finally to the full breakout
2:49 pm
where you can see in your slide that was included in the print packet, that served by our municipal, 957 thousand. that load is the blue slice, the 625,000, that's the residential non-care. broken out from it is 138,000, the sort of hash green and the 270,000. when you take those 3 slices that are offset from the pie, that's our total residential non-care. onto the 270,000 is what we are looking for phase one of sf power. only the gray, blue, and the hash
2:50 pm
green is available to us but we are only targeting that 5 percent slice. 270,000 mega watt hours. we have ample residential customer interest and sufficient load to serve. >> if you could relate to what our survey showed? >> the survey took a larger blue slice and among that larger blue slice what portion has expressed an interest. we'll definitely say categories. that's what you are seeing broken out there. the 270,000 plus the 138,000 which is about 45 interest in san
2:51 pm
francisco among residential non-care customers. >> very good, thank you. >> so the next follow up item we had was the heat map. you will recall that in prior in our prior conversations, we've taken the results of the survey and with some additional research been able to apply those survey results citywide. this heat map shows you applying the survey results from the darkest green up to the red customers propensity to stay and we try to find a common measure that would help us break the city up. so we broke it up by district, by precinct so you can see in a more granular way handout how
2:52 pm
those services apply in our neighborhoods. relating to the survey results and the pie chart i just went through, as you look at the average score and going from the bottom, the dark green up, in order to get to that 270,000 mega watt hours, we only need to climb that average score to about 55. so we stay within the green. as you look at that heat map and i'm hoping the color on your slides comes out as it does on the screens here that we are able to see. but we stay completely within the dark to lighter green colors, staying with customers with a fairly high propensity to say with the program and still are able to meet the 20-30 mega watts of supply where we are proposing.
2:53 pm
i'm going to move on to the third question. that was to place the assessment concept and clean power concept and how those two work together and explain where the funding lies. so just as a quick refresher you will recall that our solar sf program, that's our program for providing incentives to san francisco properties to put solar on their roofs launched in 2008 as a 10-year pilot program and asked to fund it at $2-5 million each year. $20 million has been appropriated for the program and in the
2:54 pm
context of adopting the authorizing i should say the clean power sf program the board of supervisors created an additional $10 million to the sf program for customers. so what you see on slide no. 27, the fiscal year 13, 14, 15, appropriation and plans for the clean power sf program. in the first row the fund appropriated for the revenues, $2 million year are funds that have been appropriated in our plan, 10 year capital plan and we had a reallocation of $10 million into go solar sf program for 2014 and as i mentioned the board of supervisors
2:55 pm
appropriated $10 million for go solar sf in fiscal 2014 and 2015. you can see the partnership between go solar sf and clean power sf where we'll be able to appropriate funds from local bills in san francisco from rooftop sooner or later arrests solar who are participating in the program. >> those who are in the program and erect facilities on their rooftop are they going to be counted as clean customers right away? >> yes. if you are a clean power sf customer, we can offer you incentives through the go solar sf program to put solar on your roof. those funds are
2:56 pm
set aside for those customers as additional encouragement and enhancement and kicks off our local build. it's helpful to us because these are projects that are exempt from sequel typically so we can begin that local build motion modestly from day one. >> thank you for the background on go solar sf. we did have a conversation on the last hearing about the go solar sf program and i want to ask again given additional authorization for additional $2 million for funding, you indicated it was the plan for the local build out . is that still the case? >> yes. it's an additional readily funding component of our local build. it's not the
2:57 pm
end of the story. but it is a piece of our local build story, yes. >> given the fact that we've been having this conversation and what concerns me is that it seems circular because the advocates, not the workers advocates but the clean power advocates are concerned about the fact that a build out resembles something that is more funded in a range of $2 million. we are talking about $4 million. last month we had a conversation. i'm going to ask again, is this a build out, if it isn't, then what is? because today is the day to have that conversation. >> yes. >> as part of our commission meeting we talked about decoupling the actual cca program in the local build out.
2:58 pm
so what we talked about is that we really have to work with lpi to look at see about a local build out and so at the last commission meeting which you are probably going to talk more about is what were some of the issues that the commission had on the lpi model and the major was a billion dollars of bonding for a bunch of projects behind the meter and what had to come online to fit the model. i think that was the concern. so we are really planning on trying to see what appetite we have as far as building a local build out because once you start planning on local build out, you are going to have to sequel. so the question is what do we have an appetite to really fund. meanwhile we know that everyone
2:59 pm
enjoys going solar and it a job creation so that was the money that was identified by the board of supervisors and the mayor asked me to increase solar for the go solar. to answer your question, we at the puc feel we have to do more and how much more do we have an appetite? >> i see the program as a tiny aspect we need to do for the build out. i'm not sure that many envisioned that to be. >> thank you, i appreciate the comments of the general manager. i would respectfully sort of provide a different perspective and just going back to what the